Aren’t we all? But your finances might not be ready, and getting your nest eggs in order can be a chore. To save you the trouble, The Post surfed to some online retirement calculators to determine what you need for your golden years. Our findings: It depends on who you ask.

To get that far, we did some research and guesswork about you, The Post reader. According to our readership polls, The Post’s average reader is 46 years old with a household income of $85,695. We guessed you will retire at 65 (you’ll keep reading The Post, of course. We have a Florida edition), will live to age 88, currently invest 9 percent of your income and have $225,000 in retirement plans.

HD Vest’s calculator — at http://www.hdvestonline but moving this month to myhdvest.com — wanted to know these basics, plus what return you expect on your investments (the calculator defaulted to 6 percent) and how much money you want during retirement (80 percent of your current income). It added in Social Security, did the math and voila! According to HD Vest, you’ll need about $1.27 million to retire, and you need to up your monthly investments $698 a month to be on track in 2019 when you hit age 65.

Not great news, but at least the calculations were easy to come by — and that, said HD Vest President Roger Ochs, is the most important thing.

“There was some heated debate on how complex or how simple we should make our calculators. We found that the more complex the calculator, the more baffled the consumer becomes,” Ochs said.

Ochs said he wants you to follow up with a professional who can manage the details, like what happens if you live longer than you expect. According to this calculator (and the others we looked at), if you guess wrong, you’ll run out of money.

“That is something we did struggle with a little bit,” said Jeff Klein, HD Vest’s director of marketing, who emphasized that you can hedge your bets by saying you intend to spend more years in retirement. The calculator allows you to say you’ll spend as many as 100 years in retirement — an unlikely scenario even with the great medical breakthroughs that are extending lifespans.

Fidelity, at http://personal100.fidelity.com, had more detailed questions, like which investments are taxable, how much you want to leave at death, if you expect to sell assets and in what month you were born (we said October; a spokesperson swore the Zodiac was not part of calculations). Fidelity also asked for the same information about your spouse. The result: You’re still short but only need $717,072 to retire. Big difference.

Not really, said Fidelity Senior Vice President Stephen Mitchell.

“We’re talking roughly equivalent numbers, but our numbers are in today’s dollars, and theirs are in future dollars,” he said, explaining that Fidelity’s numbers are adjusted to reflect a change in purchasing power and, therefore, should be easier to understand in our Y2K mindsets.

He naturally preferred Fidelity’s approach, citing its advice that you up your annual investment with inflation and, presumably, salary.

The Motley Fool’s questionnaire at http://www.fool.com was even more involved, as were its results. It boiled down to this: chip in at least $121 more a month (today’s dollars), less than Fidelity’s recommendation. Dave Braze, the Fool’s expert on personal finance and retirement planning, chocked the difference up to “algorithms, the way they actually do the computations. It’s literally impossible to say, ‘This is the reason why they differ.’ “

Social security was a variable. Braze said people who use site defaults are “too lazy to contact the Social Security Administration and get an estimate.” We tried to enter consistent values on each site.

Last stop: http://www.quicken.com. Unfortunately, Quicken deemed your situation to be worse than previously thought; fortunately, you can easily adjust your options. And a link puts you in touch with a live adviser who can walk you through the site — first consultation free.

“Quicken.com features and engineering and technology is [sic] a step ahead of any other investment site you see out there. We’ve mastered the ability to present information in an easy-to-use interface with powerful tools,” said Quicken’s Charlie Vestner, senior product manager.

Who came closest? Alan Kahn, a certified public accountant and president of AJK Financial Group, wouldn’t venture a guess, saying too much could happen in the next two decades to predict what you really need to retire.

He said he’d approach retirement conservatively. His philosophy is that the more money you have saved up for retirement, the better. While some Americans will be perfectly happy retiring with a nest egg that allows them to spend about 80 percent of their annual work wages, others may want to travel the world and may see their costs of living actually rise with retirement.

Still, Kahn said, it didn’t even matter which calculator you used, as long as you stuck with one and ran the results by a professional.

“You’ve got to do this on an annual basis,” he said.

He liked option-heavy sites — particularly Quicken — best.

“It gives you more things to think about, and that’s very important when it comes to planning.”

But, he said, he wouldn’t take online calculators — which all clearly label themselves as exercises — too seriously.

“You should use an online calculator as the beginning of a comprehensive retirement plan,” he said, pointing surfers to articles on his own retirement calculator-less site at http://www.ajkfinancialgroup.com.

In a final thought, Kahn suggested running the calculations again. He thought you’d like to retire at 62 — or maybe even 55 — rather than at 65.